http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER

This could be cool.
--

modom

On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER

> This could be cool.

How so?

nb

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:30:09 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER
>
>> This could be cool.
>
>How so?
>
Well, for one thing, it looks like there are Fed bucks to support
small food producers like my friends Nathan and Ellen. They're the
good people who sold me half a hog back in 2007. Since the Melsons are
in a pastured meat cooperative along with the Hales and a few other
local producers, the whole group may be able to get financial
assistance. And it also looks like there is Fed money available to
support restarting the farmers' market here in my tiny town.

I'm still noodling my way through the Web site, but I've found grant
opportunities that people I work with around here on things like
improving the quality of life (and food) may benefit from.

And in general, I guess the idea that the USDA is attending to issues
involving food quality and nutrition at all id a breath of fresh air.
So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag that
setting up even a modest program directed towards local food
production and sustainability seems cool. At least possibly so.
--

modom

On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

> Well, for one thing, it looks like there are Fed bucks to support

> local producers, the whole group may be able to get financial
> assistance. And it also looks like there is Fed money available to
> support......

> I'm still noodling my way through the Web site, but I've found grant
> opportunities.....

> So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag....

That's the purpose of the USDA? To give money to agriculture? Sounds
suspiciously like socialism (GASP!). I thought the purpose of the
USDA was to regulate producers to prevent the toxic contamination of
everything in sight from spinach to peanut butter. Silly me.

What was your stand on free health care, again? I forget.

nb

On Sep 25, 2:28 pm, "modom (palindrome guy)" >
wrote:
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER
>
> This could be cool.
> --
I was just hit by something in the opposite direction when I learned
that the only supermarket left that sold USDA Choice grade beef has
given it up. Vons, Safeway, Albertsons, and now Ralphs/Kroger all
sell USDA Select or worse plus some ungraded house brand (like
Ranchers Reserve for Vons) that they tout as the equivalent of USDA
Choice, though of course it's not. Now I'm going to have to drive out
of my way to Costco and probably will have to start freezing more
beef, which I have always resisted doing. -aem

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:58:51 -0500, "modom (palindrome guy)"
> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:30:09 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>>> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER
>>
>>> This could be cool.
>>
>>How so?
>>
>Well, for one thing, it looks like there are Fed bucks to support
>small food producers like my friends Nathan and Ellen. They're the
>good people who sold me half a hog back in 2007. Since the Melsons are
>in a pastured meat cooperative along with the Hales and a few other
>local producers, the whole group may be able to get financial
>assistance. And it also looks like there is Fed money available to
>support restarting the farmers' market here in my tiny town.
>
>I'm still noodling my way through the Web site, but I've found grant
>opportunities that people I work with around here on things like
>improving the quality of life (and food) may benefit from.
>
>And in general, I guess the idea that the USDA is attending to issues
>involving food quality and nutrition at all id a breath of fresh air.
>So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag that
>setting up even a modest program directed towards local food
>production and sustainability seems cool. At least possibly so.

Hey thanks for posting that!! We're rural farmers and grow coffee,
but like all other small farmers, we have a really hard time competing
against agribusiness. I love the slogan, "Know Your Farmer, Know your
Food"!

I will take the website to our group of small farmers soon.

Many thanks!

with aloha,
Cea

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:26:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>
>> Well, for one thing, it looks like there are Fed bucks to support
>
>> local producers, the whole group may be able to get financial
>> assistance. And it also looks like there is Fed money available to
>> support......
>
>> I'm still noodling my way through the Web site, but I've found grant
>> opportunities.....
>
>> So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag....
>
>That's the purpose of the USDA? To give money to agriculture? Sounds
>suspiciously like socialism (GASP!). I thought the purpose of the
>USDA was to regulate producers to prevent the toxic contamination of
>everything in sight from spinach to peanut butter. Silly me.

I suppose we could look into its charter to discover the purpose of
the USDA. But I made no statement about its purpose.

First, I spoke of the fact that funding for rural development and
local food networks is apparently being made available through a new
initiative, and if they're giving out guaranteed loans and grants for
those sorts of things, I want my town to get in line for our share.

And second, I spoke of the historical pattern of the USDA supporting
Big Ag and how this new initiative appears to be a tiny step away from
the centralization of our food production system that is the result of
such support.

Our food economy is butt ugly distorted by a history of Federal
subsidies for the big commodities like corn and soy beans. One result
of that distortion is how cheap empty calories are relative to
wholesome foods. Another is crummy tasting food.
>
>What was your stand on free health care, again? I forget.
>
I've looked into the discussion of health care reform in a number of
media and venues, but not on this forum. That thread, I passed over.
None of the proposals I've seen elsewhere so far suggest that health
insurance should be free. Probably I've missed something.

But here's a fun fact: When Clinton tried for health care reform in
the early 90s, spending on medical things in the US totaled 12% of
GDP. This year it's right about 16% of GDP. That's a macroeconomic
trend that bodes ill unless something serious changes.
--

modom

On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

> Our food economy is butt ugly distorted by a history of Federal
> subsidies for the big commodities like corn and soy beans. One result
> of that distortion is how cheap empty calories are relative to
> wholesome foods. Another is crummy tasting food.

So, we should subsidize all agriculture, large and small? Sounds like
corporate welfare.

nb

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER
>
> This could be cool.


Right.
http://simplegoodandtasty.com/
A dinner to meet "my farmer" (well, three, actually) will be held at
Lucia's in Uptown. A mere $100 <=8-) will get me in for the
meal, wine, tax, tip, and blahblahblah with the farmers. I think I'll
take my chances with getting to know "my farmers" at the farmers market.
Knowing my pigmeat guy (I'll see him tomorrow) is good enough for me and
not nearly so 'spensive.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:

> And in general, I guess the idea that the USDA is attending to issues
> involving food quality and nutrition at all id a breath of fresh air.
> So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag that
> setting up even a modest program directed towards local food
> production and sustainability seems cool. At least possibly so.

And at a time when gardening and home food preservation has renewed
interest, they are no longer funding research in safe home food
preservation! The National Center for Home Food Preservation, located
at the U of GA, has run out of funding and is down to a staff of one.
Alex bless her!
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
>
> > And in general, I guess the idea that the USDA is attending to issues
> > involving food quality and nutrition at all id a breath of fresh air.
> > So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag that
> > setting up even a modest program directed towards local food
> > production and sustainability seems cool. At least possibly so.
>
> And at a time when gardening and home food preservation has renewed
> interest, they are no longer funding research in safe home food
> preservation! The National Center for Home Food Preservation, located
> at the U of GA, has run out of funding and is down to a staff of one.
> Alex bless her!

Minor point here, but what exactly is left to research in the area of
"safe home food preservation"? It seems to me that the newest
technologies of irradiation and modified atmosphere packaging aren't
likely to be home user friendly any time soon, and all the technologies
for home user friendly food preservation have been fully researched for
many years. Based on this, it seems that all that is needed *is* one
person to maintain a web library and answer the stray question from the
public.

On Sep 25, 5:48 pm, Christine Dabney > wrote:
>
> I think you are in the Los Angeles area, if I am not mistaken, but I
> have no idea where...
>
> Anyway, if you are anywhere near a Hows Market, they have the kind of
> meat you are looking for. Even Prime.
>
> http://hows.foodmagic.com/fmap/jsphows/home.jsp
>
Thanks so much, I'll be checking out the one on Huntington Drive. Not
the direction I usually go, but not as far as Costco, and probably
more convenient. -aem

In article .com>,
"Pete C." > wrote:
> Minor point here, but what exactly is left to research in the area of
> "safe home food preservation"? It seems to me that the newest
> technologies of irradiation and modified atmosphere packaging aren't
> likely to be home user friendly any time soon, and all the technologies
> for home user friendly food preservation have been fully researched for
> many years. Based on this, it seems that all that is needed *is* one
> person to maintain a web library and answer the stray question from the
> public.

Some of the new stuff they've done there has been to create or test or
adapt recipes from other cultures so they can be safely and correctly
processed for shelf storage.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

modom wrote:

> And second, I spoke of the historical pattern of the USDA supporting
> Big Ag and how this new initiative appears to be a tiny step away from
> the centralization of our food production system that is the result of
> such support.

I think Monsanto will be filing a lawsuit to stop the new initiative any
moment now.

Bob

In article >,
"modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:


> And second, I spoke of the historical pattern of the USDA supporting
> Big Ag and how this new initiative appears to be a tiny step away from
> the centralization of our food production system that is the result of
> such support.
>
> Our food economy is butt ugly

That's Butz, not butt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

Secretary of Agriculture appointed by Richard Nixon, served from 1971 to
1976.

'His mantra to farmers was "get big or get out," and he urged farmers to
plant commodity crops like corn "from fencerow to fencerow."'

> distorted by a history of Federal
> subsidies for the big commodities like corn and soy beans. One result
> of that distortion is how cheap empty calories are relative to
> wholesome foods. Another is crummy tasting food.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:49:32 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>
>> Our food economy is butt ugly distorted by a history of Federal
>> subsidies for the big commodities like corn and soy beans. One result
>> of that distortion is how cheap empty calories are relative to
>> wholesome foods. Another is crummy tasting food.
>
>So, we should subsidize all agriculture, large and small? Sounds like
>corporate welfare.
>
>nb

Man you cropped the living shit out of my attempt to answer you. And
you've rebutted with a slogan. So:

Yes, you are so bleeding right that it's scary. And also there
*should* be compulsory cannibalism, forced conversions to Islam and an
end to the English language. Henceforth, I'll only grunt and point
towards Mecca while stuffing human entrails into the mouths of other,
weaker people.

Or... or maybe there's something else afoot. Maybe I spoke not of what
*should* be, but of opportunities the fragmented "food policy" this
nation of ours seems to have opened up for non corporate producers of
food. Maybe I'm not riding the hobby horse one might imagine. Maybe
it's more complicated than a slogan. Maybe I'm trying to deal with
what is and to seek improvements to where we find ourselves, using
what is at hand.

You know, American pragmatism.

By all means, feel free to stop the USDA subsidies to agribusiness.
End the price supports to corn and milk. I'll be happy to grunt and
point along the sidelines as I stew the asses of infidels in my Muslim
tagine. Change it, nb! Make it better! I'm on your side! End
agricultural subsidies with your magic and might!

But until you achieve that blessed victory, I'll look to what is here,
what is available at present to improve the food and life quality in
my community. This would seem to be such an opportunity. To let it
pass without even a try for the sake of a slogan would be just plain
silly.

Can you begin to imagine why I never read the health care thread here?
--

modom

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:28:32 -0500, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
>
>> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/knowy...KNOWYOURFARMER
>>
>> This could be cool.
>
>
>Right.
>http://simplegoodandtasty.com/
>A dinner to meet "my farmer" (well, three, actually) will be held at
>Lucia's in Uptown. A mere $100 <=8-) will get me in for the
>meal, wine, tax, tip, and blahblahblah with the farmers. I think I'll
>take my chances with getting to know "my farmers" at the farmers market.
>Knowing my pigmeat guy (I'll see him tomorrow) is good enough for me and
>not nearly so 'spensive.

Yeah, there is that part of the local food thing -- the Alice Waters
faction, happy to bilk the balls off their customers for the cachet of
locally sourced unicorn medallions or whatever. But around here we
have some people who have convinced me of their agricultural
bonifides. These folks walk the walk. And their chicken doesn't come
from a factory. Their lamb doesn't come from New Zealand. (Pace, my
antipodal comrades! I mean only that it arrives on my table without
traversing the globe.) I don't eat it every day, but when I do, I can
tell the difference. It tastes like here, not some place else.

Too many Americans have not the faintest notion where their food comes
from. And so they eat stuff that hardly qualifies as food at all. This
is no trivial matter, in my opinion.
--

modom

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:31:35 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> "modom (palindrome guy)" > wrote:
>
>> And in general, I guess the idea that the USDA is attending to issues
>> involving food quality and nutrition at all id a breath of fresh air.
>> So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag that
>> setting up even a modest program directed towards local food
>> production and sustainability seems cool. At least possibly so.
>
> And at a time when gardening and home food preservation has renewed
> interest, they are no longer funding research in safe home food
> preservation! The National Center for Home Food Preservation, located
> at the U of GA, has run out of funding and is down to a staff of one.
> Alex bless her!

how odd, since all the 'trend stories' in the newspaper food sections and
the like are talking about more people canning due to the recession and
whatnot.

your pal,
blake

"modom (palindrome guy)" > writes:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:49:32 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>>So, we should subsidize all agriculture, large and small? Sounds like
>>corporate welfare.

> Man you cropped the living shit out of my attempt to answer you. And
> you've rebutted with a slogan. So:

Well, there was a lot of "living sh*t" to crop.

> Yes, you are so bleeding right that it's scary. And also there
> *should* be compulsory cannibalism, forced conversions to Islam and an
> end to the English language. Henceforth, I'll only grunt and point
> towards Mecca while stuffing human entrails into the mouths of other,
> weaker people.

....which you continue to pile on.

> nation of ours seems to have opened up for non corporate producers of
> food.

So, you are producing. That's good. Do you need support?

> By all means, feel free to stop the USDA subsidies to agribusiness.
> End the price supports to corn and milk. I'll be happy to grunt and
> point along the sidelines as I stew the asses of infidels in my Muslim
> tagine. Change it, nb! Make it better! I'm on your side! End
> agricultural subsidies with your magic and might!

Just don't interfere with the possibility that I may receive help.

> But until you achieve that blessed victory, I'll look to what is here,
> what is available at present to improve the food and life quality in
> my community. This would seem to be such an opportunity. To let it
> pass without even a try for the sake of a slogan would be just plain
> silly.

Amazing how you can decry all those agribizes receiving help, yet get
right in line for your share.

Before you went all apey, I was trying to make the point that there are
folks who actually need help, ppl who, due to economic circumstance
beyond their control, are NOT producing anything at all or receiving
ANYTHING AT ALL!!. But, apparently, they are not worthy of help from
our govt. Only those who are "producing" are eligible. Amazing how
only those who don't really require help receive it and those who really
do need help are leaches on the system. I'm sorry to have impugned your
sensibilities with mere slogans. Pray, please return to your rightful
place in line.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> "modom (palindrome guy)" > writes:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:49:32 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> >>So, we should subsidize all agriculture, large and small? Sounds like
> >>corporate welfare.
>
> > Man you cropped the living shit out of my attempt to answer you. And
> > you've rebutted with a slogan. So:
>
> Well, there was a lot of "living sh*t" to crop.

> Amazing how you can decry all those agribizes receiving help, yet get
> right in line for your share.

I think that there's a difference between helping the rich get richer,
by producing vast quantities of mediocre food, some with poor
nutritional quality (I believe that HFCS has its place, but it isn't
exactly top of the line for health benefits); and helping people produce
quality food, without getting rich at it.

I think that the USDA should help *all* of agriculture, not just the
rich involved in monoculture.

I posted a quote from Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture from 1971 to
1976, which I believe is worth repeating, even though it was just
yesterday that I posted it last:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz

'His mantra to farmers was "get big or get out," and he urged farmers to
plant commodity crops like corn "from fencerow to fencerow."'

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-09-26, Dan Abel > wrote:

> I think that there's a difference between helping the rich get richer,
> by producing vast quantities of mediocre food, some with poor
> nutritional quality (I believe that HFCS has its place, but it isn't
> exactly top of the line for health benefits); and helping people produce
> quality food, without getting rich at it.
>
> I think that the USDA should help *all* of agriculture, not just the
> rich involved in monoculture.

I guess that's the schism, here. I think help should go to those who
have essentially nothing at all, as opposed to those who have
something. but would like more. I guess that makes me a communist or
socialist or whatever the far right nut bags label it. I prefer to
think of it as a humanist, though even that may be too limiting. I
guess I just feel help should go to those who need it the most,
apparently a very upopular view in this country.

nb

notbob wrote:

>
> I think help should go to those who
> have essentially nothing at all, as opposed to those who have
> something. but would like more. I guess that makes me a communist or
> socialist or whatever the far right nut bags label it. I prefer to
> think of it as a humanist, though even that may be too limiting. I
> guess I just feel help should go to those who need it the most,
> apparently a very unpopular view in this country.
>
> nb


I couldn't agree more.

gloria p

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:31:35 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
(snip)
> > The National Center for Home Food Preservation, located at the U of
> > GA, has run out of funding and is down to a staff of one. Alex
> > bless her!

>
> how odd, since all the 'trend stories' in the newspaper food sections and
> the like are talking about more people canning due to the recession and
> whatnot.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I agree. That's the goofiness of it. The NCHFP was established with
grant money maybe 5-7 years ago and they've done a lot of stuff -
providing education materials has been a big part, I'm guessing. They
ran out of funding at an inopportune time, IMNSHO.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Yes, I Can! blog - check
it out. And check this, too: <http://www.kare11.com/news/
newsatfour/newsatfour_article.aspx?storyid=823232&catid=323>

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-09-26, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > I think that there's a difference between helping the rich get richer,
> > by producing vast quantities of mediocre food, some with poor
> > nutritional quality (I believe that HFCS has its place, but it isn't
> > exactly top of the line for health benefits); and helping people produce
> > quality food, without getting rich at it.
> >
> > I think that the USDA should help *all* of agriculture, not just the
> > rich involved in monoculture.
>
> I guess that's the schism, here. I think help should go to those who
> have essentially nothing at all, as opposed to those who have
> something. but would like more. I guess that makes me a communist or
> socialist or whatever the far right nut bags label it. I prefer to
> think of it as a humanist, though even that may be too limiting. I
> guess I just feel help should go to those who need it the most,
> apparently a very upopular view in this country.

The "A" in "USDA" stands for agriculture. What kind of agricultural
help can we give someone who has nothing? They probably have no land,
and no reliable access to land. If they truly have nothing, they need
food, shelter and health care, not advice and help in establishing a
farm or ranch.

I don't disagree with what you say in that last paragraph, just that I
don't think the USDA is the appropriate agency to help these people.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-09-26, Dan Abel > wrote:

> don't think the USDA is the appropriate agency to help these people.

Last time I checked, the USDA was an agency of the US govt, but if you
want to narrow it down to enhance your argument, I have no objection.

nb

Dan Abel wrote:

>
> The "A" in "USDA" stands for agriculture. What kind of agricultural
> help can we give someone who has nothing? They probably have no land,
> and no reliable access to land. If they truly have nothing, they need
> food, shelter and health care, not advice and help in establishing a
> farm or ranch.
>
> I don't disagree with what you say in that last paragraph, just that I
> don't think the USDA is the appropriate agency to help these people.
>



Isn't the USDA in charge of the food stamp program?

gloria p

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:55:16 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:31:35 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> (snip)
>>> The National Center for Home Food Preservation, located at the U of
>>> GA, has run out of funding and is down to a staff of one. Alex
>>> bless her!
>
>>
>> how odd, since all the 'trend stories' in the newspaper food sections and
>> the like are talking about more people canning due to the recession and
>> whatnot.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I agree. That's the goofiness of it. The NCHFP was established with
> grant money maybe 5-7 years ago and they've done a lot of stuff -
> providing education materials has been a big part, I'm guessing. They
> ran out of funding at an inopportune time, IMNSHO.

were they the ones who manned a phone help line, or am i completely
misremembering?

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:05:30 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-26, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> don't think the USDA is the appropriate agency to help these people.
>
>Last time I checked, the USDA was an agency of the US govt, but if you
>want to narrow it down to enhance your argument, I have no objection.
>
>nb

My argument was always far more narrow than yours, nb. I hope you can
see that. I never advocated oppressing the destitute. Only taking
advantage of a new initiative. I'm having trouble following why you
think that constitutes harm to the needy. Why must it be an either/or
situation?

Cow Hill, Texas has a very poor population in general. Last I heard
more than 70% of elementary school students here qualify for free
school lunches. (A USDA program, by the way:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/ ) A little more than 12% of our
local population lives at or below 50% of the Federal poverty level.
In all, nearly 23% of the population here lives in poverty. This is
according to the latest data I have been able to find. But since those
numbers are from 2007 -- before the big recession really hit -- they
are very likely lower than the reality of 2009.

We picked purple hull peas in the row crops near the community garden
one day last month with a young woman who lives in public housing. She
told me she'd recently spent two days without anything to eat. The row
crops we harvested went to her and people like her via our local food
bank, meals on wheels, and other local charitable organizations. I
believe we will be able to do a better job raising and distributing
those crops with assistance from the USDA.

Further, the new initiative may help us with establishing a stronger
local food production and distribution system in this part of Texas.
Improving the economic prospects for our town can have a significant
and beneficial effect on the lives of the nearly one in eight among us
who are so impoverished they are often unsure where their food will
come from tomorrow. Making a poor Texas town a little less poor via
support for the local ag economy seems to me a good idea.

If you mean to say that nothing should be done by the USDA in this
area, do you also mean to say that nothing should be spent by the NSA,
the DoE, the DoD, or any of the rest of the Federal alphabet soup? I
know you probably don't, but I can't see where it stops.

Anyway, I never made a statement about what SHOULD be done -- except
some ridiculously sarcastic stuff, which I regret. In this you have
broadened the discussion beyond what I said. Your concerns with
justice are largely the same as mine (I think). There exists a flawed
and crummy ag system in our economy and our government. But I found
reason to think that the lives of my neighbors may be improved by
working with one new part of that system. I'm trying to find practical
solutions to some real problems. I'm trying to use what is out there
and available to make my town a little better.

Do you mean to say that we will be somehow polluted by contact with
the government?

I really don't get it.

(PS Sorry I went "apey" on you. But I felt like I'd served somebody
scrambled eggs and he told me the pie was too salty. It made no sense
to me, so I typed a bunch of nonsense back.)
--

modom

On 2009-09-27, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:

> (PS Sorry I went "apey" on you. But I felt like I'd served somebody
> scrambled eggs and he told me the pie was too salty. It made no sense
> to me, so I typed a bunch of nonsense back.)

No biggie. We all get a bit peckish, at times. Besides, life is too
short to hold a grudge.

nb

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

>
> We picked purple hull peas in the row crops near the community garden
> one day last month with a young woman who lives in public housing. She
> told me she'd recently spent two days without anything to eat. The row
> crops we harvested went to her and people like her via our local food
> bank, meals on wheels, and other local charitable organizations. I
> believe we will be able to do a better job raising and distributing
> those crops with assistance from the USDA.
>
> Further, the new initiative may help us with establishing a stronger
> local food production and distribution system in this part of Texas.
> Improving the economic prospects for our town can have a significant
> and beneficial effect on the lives of the nearly one in eight among us
> who are so impoverished they are often unsure where their food will
> come from tomorrow. Making a poor Texas town a little less poor via
> support for the local ag economy seems to me a good idea.
>


I hope you get some funding. Your community garden sounded valuable
from the start.

It might also be valuable if some organization in the area sponsored
classes in food prep and making the most of available foods.

I can remember the old USDA surplus food distribution program running
into people who just didn't know or care what to do with the food. My
elderly aunt was a retired widow on a tight budget (she shopped yard
sales and held her own with the results in order to pay her property
taxes.) She used to get flour, cheese, peanut butter and a number of
other raw ingredients from friends and neighbors who just didn't know
what to do with it. She was a terrific cook who made healthy meals with
just a few additional grocery store items. She's 97 now and lived on
her own until two years ago in a house she lived in for almost 80 years.

gloria p

Gloria wrote:

> It might also be valuable if some organization in the area sponsored
> classes in food prep and making the most of available foods.
>
> I can remember the old USDA surplus food distribution program running into
> people who just didn't know or care what to do with the food. My elderly
> aunt was a retired widow on a tight budget (she shopped yard sales and
> held her own with the results in order to pay her property taxes.) She
> used to get flour, cheese, peanut butter and a number of other raw
> ingredients from friends and neighbors who just didn't know what to do
> with it. She was a terrific cook who made healthy meals with just a few
> additional grocery store items. She's 97 now and lived on her own until
> two years ago in a house she lived in for almost 80 years.

You reminded me of one of the most heartwarming stories I ever read on this
group:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...aa5b9a1e1293ef

Margaret, I said it then and I'll say it now: I wish I could make you a
National Treasure, I'd do it on the spot after reading that.

Bob

Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2009-09-26, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>> > I think that there's a difference between helping the rich get
>> > richer, by producing vast quantities of mediocre food, some with
>> > poor nutritional quality (I believe that HFCS has its place, but
>> > it isn't exactly top of the line for health benefits); and
>> > helping people produce quality food, without getting rich at it.
>> >
>> > I think that the USDA should help *all* of agriculture, not just
>> > the rich involved in monoculture.
>>
>> I guess that's the schism, here. I think help should go to those
>> who have essentially nothing at all, as opposed to those who have
>> something. but would like more. I guess that makes me a communist
>> or socialist or whatever the far right nut bags label it. I prefer
>> to think of it as a humanist, though even that may be too limiting.
>> I guess I just feel help should go to those who need it the most,
>> apparently a very upopular view in this country.
>
> The "A" in "USDA" stands for agriculture. What kind of agricultural
> help can we give someone who has nothing? They probably have no
> land, and no reliable access to land. If they truly have nothing,
> they need food, shelter and health care, not advice and help in
> establishing a farm or ranch.
>
> I don't disagree with what you say in that last paragraph, just that
> I don't think the USDA is the appropriate agency to help these
> people.

Lots of agencies are appropriate for helping "these people." USDA
could see to it that they don't live in food deserts and can afford to
eat food instead of processed garbage by changing the subsidy
structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Anybody who can point to an unsubsidized agriculture any time,
anywhere in all of human history had best chime in with an example
and its outcome before advocating that. I'd submit that there has
never been any such a thing.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter > http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP:

I'd rather be a tax and spend liberal then a borrow and spend
republican.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:37 -0500, David Fetter wrote:
>
> Anybody who can point to an unsubsidized agriculture any time,
> anywhere in all of human history had best chime in with an example
> and its outcome before advocating that. I'd submit that there has
> never been any such a thing.
>
> Cheers,
> David.

pot farming?

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:37 -0500, David Fetter wrote:
| >
| > Anybody who can point to an unsubsidized agriculture any time,
| > anywhere in all of human history had best chime in with an example
| > and its outcome before advocating that. I'd submit that there has
| > never been any such a thing.
| >
| > Cheers,
| > David.
|
| pot farming?
|
| your pal,
| blake

....and moonshine?

pavane

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:37 -0500, (David Fetter)
wrote:

>Dan Abel > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-09-26, Dan Abel > wrote:
>>>
>
>
>Anybody who can point to an unsubsidized agriculture any time,
>anywhere in all of human history had best chime in with an example
>and its outcome before advocating that. I'd submit that there has
>never been any such a thing.
>
>Cheers,
>David.

Kona Coffee has never been subsidized if I understand your point.
Unless you mean something like crop insurance which we personally
never buy. I don't think other Hawaii coffee has been subsidized. And
we came from the sugar can world before, which was indeed subsidized,
heavily. There is now only one sugar plantation in Hawaii, as a
result.

What I like about the USDA's new program "Know Your Farmer, Buy Local"
is that it hopefully connects what you are eating or drinking (in our
case) with whom you got that from. Some one in the US spent time
growing the product while you were busy doing your job. We all have
jobs.

aloha,
Cea

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:36:49 -1000, pure kona >
wrote:


>What I like about the USDA's new program "Know Your Farmer, Buy Local"
>is that it hopefully connects what you are eating or drinking (in our
>case) with whom you got that from. Some one in the US spent time
>growing the product while you were busy doing your job. We all have
>jobs.
>
>aloha,
>Cea

This is why I so love farmers markets. I can talk to the farmer that
grew my produce, or whatever they have. And the farmer that raised
the pig or fished the salmon, or whatever product.
Not only that, often they have crops they are trying out, and
sometimes those things are vegetables I have only read about or is an
heirloom variety that one doesn't see in a regular store.

Christine

pavane > wrote:
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:37 -0500, David Fetter wrote:
> | >
> | > Anybody who can point to an unsubsidized agriculture any time,
> | > anywhere in all of human history had best chime in with an example
> | > and its outcome before advocating that. I'd submit that there has
> | > never been any such a thing.
> | >
> | > Cheers,
> | > David.
> |
> | pot farming?
> |
> | your pal,
> | blake
>
> ...and moonshine?
>
> pavane

Both of those are subsidized by prohibition, which boosts prices,
encourages a more concentrated product, and rewards ruthlessness and
lawlessness. I'm not saying it was a good or well-thought-through
subsidy--quite the opposite--but it's a subsidy.

Cheers,
David
--
David Fetter > http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP:

To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit
contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale
corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its
worst.
Bob Black, The Libertarian As Conservative, 1984

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:10:12 -0500, (David Fetter)
wrote:


>Both of those are subsidized by prohibition, which boosts prices,
>encourages a more concentrated product, and rewards ruthlessness and
>lawlessness. I'm not saying it was a good or well-thought-through
>subsidy--quite the opposite--but it's a subsidy.
>
>Cheers,
>David

Welcome back Dave!! Glad to see you posting here again!

Christine, who is currently living in the land of chiles (NM)

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:32:37 -0500, David Fetter wrote:
>>
>> Anybody who can point to an unsubsidized agriculture any time,
>> anywhere in all of human history had best chime in with an example
>> and its outcome before advocating that. I'd submit that there has
>> never been any such a thing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David.
>
> pot farming?


Heehee, blake...

Didja know that LA has more pot stores than it does Starbucks...


--
Best
Greg

On 2009-10-13, Gregory Morrow > wrote:

> Didja know that LA has more pot stores than it does Starbucks...

Ophir CO is about to go down the road of govt sanctioned pot farming.
Nay, govt OWNED/RUN pot farming, to save it's collapsing economy. How
many other local govts might follow suit? If marijauna is ever going
to find govt acceptance and legititacy, now looks like a good time.

I no longer indulge, but the continuing criminalization of this
relatively benign substance is costing more in money and human lives
than legalizing it ever could.

nb